dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (10/26/88)
In article <16800385@clio> berger@clio.las.uiuc.edu writes: >Borland's development environment works ok on a 100% compatible >machine, but the Microsoft stuff continues to work on generic >ms-dos computers. Actually, not entirely so. Borland's Turbo C comes in two versions, both included in the package: the screen-oriented version, which is IBM-specific, and the command-line version, which is usable on any generic MS-DOS system. Similarly, my understanding is that Microsoft's C compiler is usable on any MS-DOS system but QuickC requires an IBM-compatible system. Comparing QuickC and Borland's screen-oriented Turbo C, we find that far more incompatibility complaints have appeared on Usenet about Quick C than about Turbo C. In general it seems that Microsoft has a harder time being compatible than Borland does. However, neither can claim to always write well-behaved software. Over the years Borland has become more and more IBM-compatible and Microsoft has become less and less so. There was a time when all Microsoft products were pretty much MS-DOS compatible, with the possible exception of SWITCHAR, that Microsoft C wouldn't recognize until version 4.0 or so, and which the Microsoft Linker never did and still doesn't. Meanwhile, Borland insisted on going through the ROM-BIOS for all I/O (even pure text) until around version 3.0 of Turbo Pacal (and doing funny things with video hardware), when this became optional (but still the default). Oh, yes, I forgot to mention: IBM, too, has had trouble remaining IBM-compatible. But that's another storey. This article Copyright 1988 Rahul Dhesi, All rights reserved, permission granted to republish except as part of any other copyrighted work or collection. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) (10/27/88)
(I didn't cite your posting, Rahul, cuz all that leegaleeze at the end
reminded me of Phil Katz and Thom Henderson!)
But, 2 versions of Turbo C in every package? What are they called? I
don't seem to have both on any version of 1.5, beta or OTW.
??
--
Pete Holsberg UUCP: {...!rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh
Mercer College CompuServe: 70240,334
1200 Old Trenton Road GEnie: PJHOLSBERG
Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (10/28/88)
In article <362@mccc.UUCP> pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: >But, 2 versions of Turbo C in every package? What are they called? I >don't seem to have both on any version of 1.5, beta or OTW. Unless things have changed, one is TC.EXE and the other is TCC.EXE. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) (11/01/88)
In article <4520@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: =In article <362@mccc.UUCP> pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: =>But, 2 versions of Turbo C in every package? What are they called? I =>don't seem to have both on any version of 1.5, beta or OTW. = =Unless things have changed, one is TC.EXE and the other is TCC.EXE. =-- =Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi Aw, Rahul, you really got me on that one! Two versions, indeed!! -- Pete Holsberg UUCP: {...!rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh Mercer College CompuServe: 70240,334 1200 Old Trenton Road GEnie: PJHOLSBERG Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800
darrylo@hpsrli.HP.COM (Darryl Okahata) (11/03/88)
In comp.sys.ibm.pc, pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: [ ... ] > But, 2 versions of Turbo C in every package? What are they called? I > don't seem to have both on any version of 1.5, beta or OTW. [ ... ] Every package has: 1. A command line version (just the compiler -- like un*x cc). 2. An integrated environment version (editor, compiler, debugger). -- Darryl Okahata UUCP: {hpcea!, hpfcla!} hpnmd!darrylo Internet: darrylo%hpnmd@hpcea.HP.COM CIS: 75206,3074 Disclaimer: the above is the author's personal opinion and is not the opinion or policy of his employer or of the little green men that have been following him all day.